[llvm-dev] [RFC] One or many git repositories?

[Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev]

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 9:54 AM Justin Lebar via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> FWIW my answers to these are:
>
> 1) Yes to unified history.  The main advantage of non-unified history
> is that it's easier for people to import old branches -- it's a matter
> of "git merge" instead of running the git filter-branch script I
> wrote.  But this is a relatively small (~20 minute) one-time cost to
> some of us, whereas our repository history is born by all of us
> forever.  Moreover unified history also helps people with long-running
> branches, as it lets them check out old versions of their branch and
> get a compatible version of all of the other llvm subprojects.
>

I strongly agree about this.


>
> 2) Yes to nested layout.  I find Chandler and Richard Smith's
> arguments compelling.
>

I think it is important to note what Richard pointed out: *we will almost
certainly restructure the tree to make more sense in a monorepo*.

I think the result is actually very likely to look much more flat than the
current layout, and to also be significantly superior to any of the current
layouts.

I just don't want people to think this locks us into a particular nested
layout for all time.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160725/9bdaf1fd/attachment.html>